qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] Exporting Guest RAM information for NUMA bi


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] Exporting Guest RAM information for NUMA binding
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:51:21 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.13

On 11/21/2011 11:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:30 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:

In the original post of this mail thread, I proposed a way to export
guest RAM ranges (Guest Physical Address-GPA) and their corresponding host
host virtual mappings (Host Virtual Address-HVA) from QEMU (via QEMU monitor).
The idea was to use this GPA to HVA mappings from tools like libvirt to bind
specific parts of the guest RAM to different host nodes. This needed an
extension to existing mbind() to allow binding memory of a process(QEMU) from a
different process(libvirt). This was needed since we wanted to do all this from
libvirt.

Hence I was coming from that background when I asked for extending
ms_mbind() to take a tid parameter. If QEMU community thinks that NUMA
binding should all be done from outside of QEMU, it is needed, otherwise
what you have should be sufficient.

That's just retarded, and no you won't get such extentions. Poking at
another process's virtual address space is just daft. Esp. if there's no
actual reason for it.

Yes, that would be a terrible interface.

Fundamentally, the entity that should be deciding what memory should be present and where it should located is the kernel. I'm fundamentally opposed to trying to make QEMU override the scheduler/mm by using cpu or memory pinning in QEMU.

From what I can tell about ms_mbind(), it just uses process knowledge to bind specific areas of memory to a memsched group and let's the kernel decide what to do with that knowledge. This is exactly the type of interface that QEMU should be using.

QEMU should tell the kernel enough information such that the kernel can make good decisions. QEMU should not be the one making the decisions.

It looks like ms_mbind() takes a flags argument which I assume is the same flags as mbind(). The current implementation ignores flags and just uses MPOL_BIND.

I would hope that the flags argument would only be treated as advisory by the kernel.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori


Furthermore, it would make libvirt a required part of qemu, and since I
don't think I've ever use libvirt that's another reason to object, I
don't need that stinking mess.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]